A question of good progress

[StressedDave]

BFF said:

If someone is having to spend that amount of concentration in determining whether or not they aren't exceeding the limits, then something is wrong. Are you saying that these clients of yours can EITHER check they are within the limits OR be able to avoid getting into all sorts of trouble. Are you saying that it's one or the other? I agree that some drivers start off like that, but no Advanced drivers end up like that. Hence my argument for further training, and the fact that we should have high standards.

It's less about having to look at the speedo and more about wanting to. You could argue that the government's obsession with speed is having the effect that drivers are more concerned about monitoring their speed lest they get a ticket via an enforcement device which has no leeway or discretion. Couple that obsession with examining the speedo and a forward observation distance a few metres in front of the bonnet and away we go... Needless to say they don't do it for long with me sat next to them.

BFF said:

Correct. There is quite a difference. Advanced Drivers should be able to get their speed correct, without using up all their concentration. It should only form a small part of it. So if they can't do that, there is something wrong and they are not advanced. However, obviously some claim they can do it, but conciously decide not to. Hence the debate about the practical reasons to obey the limits, and also the moral decisions you can take. Plus, the agreement that if you belong to an Advanced Institution you should follow their rules and codes of practice.

The instant you make it okay to break the rules based on 'if it is safe then it is okay', it becomes a free for all. Sometimes it is worthwhile, from a Professional point of view, taking a stance that follows the rules. Thats why there will always be the debate. Aside from the practical reasons of following the speed limit (there are many, despite what has been claimed on here) the big difference is the moral decision. Do you follow the Law (even thought you may disagree with it) or do you break it. It demands very high personal standards, which is what is expected from all Professions.

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility - in fact I vastly prefer it over the horrible 'Nanny Knows Best' legal quagmire that the incumbent government seems to prefer. If we had more personal responsibility on the roads and less nannying, I think we'd be better off (although we'd need a lot more big stick in the form of mobile traffic patrols to help nudge behaviour in the right direction).

BFF said:

When I said interdependent, it is probably fair to say can be, rather than will be. The main point is the same though. Why can't we teach all drivers, but particularly Advanced ones, to be both. If they can't manage both either as a concept or a practical skill, there is something wrong. By the way, regimented training can also provide the right level of stimulus and feedback to create a change in people's thinking. It's all a matter of approach.

Because driver training in this country is a buyers market. Most people want to spend the minimum amount of money, therefore most ADIs will train novices to pass the test set by the DSA, rather than instilling, for want of a better term, the right morals into drivers. As for the law abiding aspect of advanced drivers, one of the side effects of teaching people to drive at a speed where they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear and likely to remain so is that you are effectively training them to determine what the safe speed actually is and this may conflict with the posted speed limit. Oh, and I wasn't doing down regimented training, it was merely my opinion that with such a cerebral subject as driving it is better to gain improvements by consensus rather than imposition. Most people drive reasonably successfully (in terms of accidents per mile driven), so they don't want to have to unlearn everything and relearn.

[gridgway]

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

But shouldn't we teach that they should be safe and law abiding. One thing. As soon as we split it, don't you make the law abiding secondary. Whereas the law abiding is part of, and contribute to, the safety. They are totally interdependent.

The principal of safe and law abiding must be correct. The problem I have is with the turning of a speed limit into a completely rigid and binary obey/disobey the law issue. I don't think that this is an optimum safety strategy.

I am not an Advanced driver, but have read Roadcraft and believe it talks about the real-world of always driving to a plan, constantly modifying the plan and prioritization within planning. The idea that obeying the speed limit should always take the highest priority within the planning process is arbitrary at best.

Now of course in most occasions it can take a high spot. Sometimes I lower its priority. The one occasion that always comes to mind is overtaking. I plan and execute an overtake and my high priorities are about forward observation, road position, the relationship between me and the car being overtaken stopping in the clear and possibly anything nasty behind. Keeping within the speed limit specifically takes a lower priority for me. And as I have said before (and asked for tips about) I am not aware of a technique to plan an overtake specifically within the limit. Hence not an advanced driver.

However as far as I know (not page-perfect) Roadcraft has nothing to say on how to do this, so I think that is a supporting argument about the prioritization of speed limit observance being lowered in an overtake.

Graham

[TripleS]

StressedDave said:

If we had more personal responsibility on the roads and less nannying, I think we'd be better off (although we'd need a lot more big stick in the form of mobile traffic patrols to help nudge behaviour in the right direction).

I'm sure that's right, but it would also be nice to get the scent of a bit of carrot now and again!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

gridgway said:

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

But shouldn't we teach that they should be safe and law abiding. One thing. As soon as we split it, don't you make the law abiding secondary. Whereas the law abiding is part of, and contribute to, the safety. They are totally interdependent.

The principal of safe and law abiding must be correct. The problem I have is with the turning of a speed limit into a completely rigid and binary obey/disobey the law issue. I don't think that this is an optimum safety strategy.

I am not an Advanced driver, but have read Roadcraft and believe it talks about the real-world of always driving to a plan, constantly modifying the plan and prioritization within planning. The idea that obeying the speed limit should always take the highest priority within the planning process is arbitrary at best.

Now of course in most occasions it can take a high spot. Sometimes I lower its priority. The one occasion that always comes to mind is overtaking. I plan and execute an overtake and my high priorities are about forward observation, road position, the relationship between me and the car being overtaken stopping in the clear and possibly anything nasty behind. Keeping within the speed limit specifically takes a lower priority for me. And as I have said before (and asked for tips about) I am not aware of a technique to plan an overtake specifically within the limit. Hence not an advanced driver.

However as far as I know (not page-perfect) Roadcraft has nothing to say on how to do this, so I think that is a supporting argument about the prioritization of speed limit observance being lowered in an overtake.

Graham

Roadcraft is written for Police drivers, who are not bound by the same rules as the public all of the time.
Police drivers on one hand are taught to make the maximum safe progress they can without adherance to limits (for when they are using a lawful exemption) & to make safe progress up to but not beyond the limit at others. Just like other driving tests, if they can't drive safely within limits where required to do so they won't pass.

[gridgway]

vonhosen said:

Roadcraft is written for Police drivers, who are not bound by the same rules as the public all of the time.
Police drivers on one hand are taught to make the maximum safe progress they can without adherance to limits (for when they are using a lawful exemption) & to make safe progress up to but not beyond the limit at others. Just like other driving tests, if they can't drive safely within limits where required to do so they won't pass.

Roadcraft doesn't seem to differentiate between the two other than in the intro. It says it does not cover emergency response or pursuit driving. Are there other lawful exepmtions where Police drivers are exempt from the speed limit? In fact it says "Statutory speed limits set the maximum permissable speed." That seems to indicate that the Roadcraft book is mostly for Police driving where lawful expemtions from the speed limits do not apply.

Anyway my point was more that (Roadcraft) planning allowed for prioritization and that (Graham) planning took into account circumstances where safety was a higher priority than speed limit adherence - as shown by the overtake example (Roadcraft says do it "briskly"

And I know "the answer" - don't overtake if you can't do it safely within the limit, but that's an answer predicated on legal grounds, not safety grounds. If one did find oneself in a situation that needed more speed to complete the overtake safely, one would need to choose the safest course of action which might be going faster than the limit. Given the circs, better to exceed the limit or crash?

I had an example one time when a car I was overtaking decided to match my speed. So as I accelerated he did. I decided to call off the manoeuvre but he braked and stayed on my inside so I gave it some real welly and left him to it. I didn't want to risk being caught stuck on the offside with a car coming toward me. My plan for safety put the act of exceeding the limit way down my priorities.

Graham
PS my Roadcraft is a 1994 edition, so perhaps breaking the speed limit has become a badder thing in the last 12 years :-)

Edited by gridgway on Monday 19th June 22:30 to say where on earth did that smiley in the middle come from?? :-)

Edited by gridgway on Monday 19th June 22:31

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit.

What is so wrong in saying to Civilian Drivers 'don't break the speed limits'. There are many other laws that you follow, on and off the road, so what is so special about this one.

GreenV8S said:

The only reason that has been presented to comply with the speed limits is because they are enforced with very harsh penalties.

You keep saying this, and I don't know if you genuinely believe it, or you deliberately misrepresent what is said. It has been said on here many many times that there are many many drivers that obey the limit simply because it is the law. They have decided to do it as a matter of principle. You may not like that stance, or even agree with it. But you shouldn't deny that it exists. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason you follow the law on speeding is because of the harsh penalties if caught. Fine. But there are others that do it for different reasons.

What's so special about this one is that there is no good reason not to break the speed limits other than the law. There are relatively few laws that can be broken without harming anyone, and off hand I can't think of any that are enforced with such high profile and wih such huge penalties. I see no good reason for speed limits to be enforced in the way that they are.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps some people comply with the law without question just because it is the law regardless of whether they agree with it. There may be some who disagree with it but comply because of the threat of enforcement. Judging by the behaviour I see around me on the roads I think all these people must be in a very very small minority, because it seems to me that most drivers exceed the speed limit routinely when they think it is safe to do so. And they seem to get away unscathed time after time, so they're probably pretty good at judging when it is safe. In any case, I question the value of the law and I question whether the law should be enforced in the way that it is currently enforced, and those questions stand regardless of whether the laws are currently obeyed.

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

I question the usefullness of the arbitrary speed limit....

Why are the exisiting ones arbitrary? I'm not suggesting that every limit has always been set correctly, what I'm asking is why you suggest they are arbitrary. You may not agree with the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean they are arbitrary.

They are arbitrary in the sense that the purpose of the speed limit is to encourage people to drive at a safe and appropriate speed, but the limit does not represent a boundary between safe and unsafe speeds. Compliance with the speed limit is neither necessary nor sufficient for safe driving.

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

....and I argue that the policy which enforces it relatively strictly is wrong, harmfull and counterproductive.

What would happen if we go with your limits and system you proposed earlier. You said that 20%-30% over the set limit was significant. If I remember what you said correctly, you said that if you make the conscious decision to drive down a 40mph road at 48mph, then you accept you should get 'booked'. However, if you drive down it at 47mph, you should be let off. So isn't this exactly the same as we have now. The ONLY difference you are proposing is that you want to set higher limits. You still want folk to get done based on a specifc speed regardless of conditions or safety. You just want the limit raising to what you think is correct.

I am only trying to understand exactly where you are coming from. Obviously we disagree on the basics, but I genuinely don't see how what you are proposing is any different to what we have now (other than higher limits).

This is not a small topic. Before we head off down there I'd like to ask whether you understand what I mean when I say that speed limit enforcement brings disadvantages as well as advantages, and whether you agree that it is desireable to maximise the advantages and minimise the disadvantages. If we establish that as a starting point, it might be interesting to see if we agree what the advantages and disadvantages are and what we can do to vary them. The figures I suggested represented the outcome of my own thinking, but it seems pointless trying to debate the best solution unless we can agree what the goal is.

Edited by GreenV8S on Monday 19th June 22:54

[vonhosen]

gridgway said:

vonhosen said:

Roadcraft is written for Police drivers, who are not bound by the same rules as the public all of the time.
Police drivers on one hand are taught to make the maximum safe progress they can without adherance to limits (for when they are using a lawful exemption) & to make safe progress up to but not beyond the limit at others. Just like other driving tests, if they can't drive safely within limits where required to do so they won't pass.

Roadcraft doesn't seem to differentiate between the two other than in the intro. It says it does not cover emergency response or pursuit driving. Are there other lawful exepmtions where Police drivers are exempt from the speed limit? In fact it says "Statutory speed limits set the maximum permissable speed." That seems to indicate that the Roadcraft book is mostly for Police driving where lawful expemtions from the speed limits do not apply.

It is pre-course reading material, to establish some prior knowledge & save time on their course. What's most important is what goes on in the course, where "Roadcraft" will be demonstrated, practiced & perfected. Quoting their interpretation of roadcraft will not gain a pass where it is at odds with the actual instruction they get.

gridgway said:

Anyway my point was more that (Roadcraft) planning allowed for prioritization and that (Graham) planning took into account circumstances where safety was a higher priority than speed limit adherence - as shown by the overtake example (Roadcraft says do it "briskly"

And I know "the answer" - don't overtake if you can't do it safely within the limit, but that's an answer predicated on legal grounds, not safety grounds. If one did find oneself in a situation that needed more speed to complete the overtake safely, one would need to choose the safest course of action which might be going faster than the limit. Given the circs, better to exceed the limit or crash?

If it's a choice between crashing or breaking a limit, then break the limit, but it will in all likleyhood have been an error of judgement that's led to that position.

gridgway said:

I had an example one time when a car I was overtaking decided to match my speed. So as I accelerated he did. I decided to call off the manoeuvre but he braked and stayed on my inside so I gave it some real welly and left him to it. I didn't want to risk being caught stuck on the offside with a car coming toward me. My plan for safety put the act of exceeding the limit way down my priorities.

Not good behaviour by the other driver I grant you. Could this have been anticipated from any other obeserved behaviour ? How much "legal" differential was available to you at the outset ? Could any of your actions have been misinterpreted & provoked such a reaction ? (not a criticism just sometimes on reflection we may see reasons that have contributed to events that weren't obvious to us at the time).
I don't ever seem to get in such situations, but perhaps I'm lucky. I'll grant you that mostly when I am overtaking on SC NSL roads I don't have to worry about a limit, but when not using an exemption, unless they are a lot below the limit (larger differential available) there is little point in going.

gridgway said:

Graham
PS my Roadcraft is a 1994 edition, so perhaps breaking the speed limit has become a badder thing in the last 12 years :-)

The situation hasn't changed much in Police training. You were expected to observe speed limits before & you are now. The main change in roadcraft the book, is the addition of the first chapter in respect of driver's attitudes.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th June 23:00

[outofthebox]

Thanks to those who replied to my last post:

In the first scenario I broke the the speed limit, however the police officer did not think I was doing anything wrong. He was also breaking the speed limit. But perhaps it's worth remembering that at that point in time drink driving was socially acceptable.

In the second, the driver in front of me was driving dangerously, but had s/he been rear-ended, it might have been the lorry driver who was seen as in the wrong as dolly day dream would no doubt have argued that s/he was hit from behind so it was the lorry's fault. Insurance companies often don't argue in such a situation. As to whether I was breaking the speed limit we can't really be sure as my speedo was reading only a few mph over and as we all know most car speedos (mine included) read about 5-10% over.

I use these examples to illustrate that very few situations are totally clear cut. Playing by the rules is all well and good but careful judgement is so much more important.

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit.

What is so wrong in saying to Civilian Drivers 'don't break the speed limits'. There are many other laws that you follow, on and off the road, so what is so special about this one.

GreenV8S said:

The only reason that has been presented to comply with the speed limits is because they are enforced with very harsh penalties.

You keep saying this, and I don't know if you genuinely believe it, or you deliberately misrepresent what is said. It has been said on here many many times that there are many many drivers that obey the limit simply because it is the law. They have decided to do it as a matter of principle. You may not like that stance, or even agree with it. But you shouldn't deny that it exists. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason you follow the law on speeding is because of the harsh penalties if caught. Fine. But there are others that do it for different reasons.

What's so special about this one is that there is no good reason not to break the speed limits other than the law. There are relatively few laws that can be broken without harming anyone, and off hand I can't think of any that are enforced with such high profile and wih such huge penalties. I see no good reason for speed limits to be enforced in the way that they are.

There are many good reasons not to break the limits, not least other road users expectations. There are many laws that you follow only because they are the law. Drivers will stop at a red light, even when patently clear there is no other traffic. They will not cross a white solid line. They will get an MOT even though they know that the car is fine. They will stop at a STOP sign, even when the road is clear. They will wear their seatbelt even though they are on a country road with excellent visibility and no other traffic. They will no longer use the mobile while driving. They will wear a crash helmet. All of these can be broken without harming anyone else (until something goes wrong obviously). There are amny examples. You probably follow most, if not all. If you say that you want to break the law on speeding because it can be broken without harming anyone else, then why do you not break these? They (and many others) can also be broken without harming others). Is it not simply true that you think the limits are too low.

GreenV8S said:

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps some people comply with the law without question just because it is the law regardless of whether they agree with it. There may be some who disagree with it but comply because of the threat of enforcement. Judging by the behaviour I see around me on the roads I think all these people must be in a very very small minority, because it seems to me that most drivers exceed the speed limit routinely when they think it is safe to do so. And they seem to get away unscathed time after time, so they're probably pretty good at judging when it is safe. In any case, I question the value of the law and I question whether the law should be enforced in the way that it is currently enforced, and those questions stand regardless of whether the laws are currently obeyed.

My point initially was that some obey it because it is the law, and that it was a valid reason. There is no perhaps about it. There are DEFINITELY some people who obey the law, just because it is the law. I was only questioning your assertion that the only reason that people follow it is the threat of punishment.

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

I question the usefullness of the arbitrary speed limit....

Why are the exisiting ones arbitrary? I'm not suggesting that every limit has always been set correctly, what I'm asking is why you suggest they are arbitrary. You may not agree with the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean they are arbitrary.

They are arbitrary in the sense that the purpose of the speed limit is to encourage people to drive at a safe and appropriate speed, but the limit does not represent a boundary between safe and unsafe speeds. Compliance with the speed limit is neither necessary nor sufficient for safe driving.

The limits are set at the specific figures they are set at (if you can follow that!!!) for a number of reasons. They are obviously a compromise, as any set limit would be. But they are not arbitrary. That suggests they were randomly selected without rationale. That is not the case, although you may not agree with the rationale behind the decisions.

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

....and I argue that the policy which enforces it relatively strictly is wrong, harmfull and counterproductive.

What would happen if we go with your limits and system you proposed earlier. You said that 20%-30% over the set limit was significant. If I remember what you said correctly, you said that if you make the conscious decision to drive down a 40mph road at 48mph, then you accept you should get 'booked'. However, if you drive down it at 47mph, you should be let off. So isn't this exactly the same as we have now. The ONLY difference you are proposing is that you want to set higher limits. You still want folk to get done based on a specifc speed regardless of conditions or safety. You just want the limit raising to what you think is correct.

I am only trying to understand exactly where you are coming from. Obviously we disagree on the basics, but I genuinely don't see how what you are proposing is any different to what we have now (other than higher limits).

This is not a small topic. Before we head off down there I'd like to ask whether you understand what I mean when I say that speed limit enforcement brings disadvantages as well as advantages, and whether you agree that it is desireable to maximise the advantages and minimise the disadvantages. If we establish that as a starting point, it might be interesting to see if we agree what the advantages and disadvantages are and what we can do to vary them. The figures I suggested represented the outcome of my own thinking, but it seems pointless trying to debate the best solution unless we can agree what the goal is.

I agree this is not a small topic, I just wondered how you regarded fixed limits. The reason I ask is that I can only see three options. No limits, variable limits selected to meet circumstances on the day, and fixed limits. You earlier said that you thought that 20-30% was significant. All I wondered was what you inteded to do in a 40mph limit. If 48mph is significant, what happens if someone is doing 49mph. I'm not trying to catch you out, I just dont understand how it will vary from what we've got now.

[Observer2]

Big Fat F'er said:

...I can only see three options. No limits, variable limits selected to meet circumstances on the day, and fixed limits. You earlier said that you thought that 20-30% was significant. All I wondered was what you inteded to do in a 40mph limit. If 48mph is significant, what happens if someone is doing 49mph. I'm not trying to catch you out, I just dont understand how it will vary from what we've got now.

Proportionate enforcement. It's what we used to have.

Observer2 said:

StressedDave said:

Now the laws on speeding are perpetually being flouted by the general populace, irrespective of their 'adavanced' status as drivers. This generally means one of two things: either the laws are wrong (and thus should be changed) or the populace are so ill-educated and informed that they fail to see the need to adhere to them. I'd be inclined to think its the latter.

Or ... the laws on speeding were framed at a time when remote/automated detection and enforcement of speeding was technologically impossible. Consequently, the real boundary between lawful and unlawful acts was established by the ability of the authorities to detect and enforce, not by the speed limit itself. In other words, the unlawful (criminal) behaviour lies not in exceeding the speed limit per se, but in exceeding it so frequently or flagrantly that the excess speed is detected and the law enforced.

Because enforcement consumed resources, the scale of enforcement was necessarily proportionate (give or take a bit) to the actual harm caused by speeding and therefore what was necessary in the wider public interest. The enforcement was inherently self-regulating.